GITA CONTROVERSY

GITA CONTROVERSY

By removing scripture from its historical, textual, theological and sociological context, one can easily make it appear UNIVERSAL. Many scriptures have fallen victim to this process of UNIVERSALIFICATION. Even in the past, our great acharyas, Rishis, and Munis, both in their compositions and while compiling scriptures, have done this. For example, Vedic mantras were used in Upanishads this way, and in the Gita, Upanishad mantras faced the same fate. We need not even mention other Dharmasastras, Puranas, and epics. Any sincere student of scripture will notice instances of such ‘text torture’ in the commentaries of great acharyas.

So, it was no surprise that on the night of December 20th, 2011, during a CNN-IBN panel discussion on the Gita (Face the Nation by Ms. Sagarika Gosh), where the idea of making it the SCRIPTURE of India was debated, every panelist followed the same path. Of course, I am not a scholar, so I neither criticize nor condemn them. But as a sincere student of scripture, I would like to disagree with their views and interpretations of the Gita or any other scripture.

We must acknowledge the historical fact that the Gita was reintroduced to the Indian intellectual and religious mainstream by the West (Eric J. Sharpe, The Universal Gita: Western Images of the Bhagavadgita: A Bicentenary Survey, London, Duckworth, 1985). However, this does not mean the Gita was always unfamiliar in the past. It is, after all, part of the Prasthanatrayi¹ along with the Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra, which form the canon of Hindu scriptures. That is why every great acharya (like Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and Vallabha) wrote commentaries on all three texts to establish their doctrines within their sampradaya. I read somewhere that over 300 old orthodox commentaries are preserved in a Gitalaya (Gita temple). And since the 20th century, almost every decade has seen new commentaries on the Gita, particularly in English, by both Western and Indian scholars.

Reading the text alone (in any language) without the help of commentary allows one to grasp the teachings of the Gita. At the same time, no single commentary can claim to provide the intended meaning of the Gita’s author. In fact, according to many sincere scholars, the Gita was not penned by a single author and contains several interpolations. With this reality, anyone can read into the Gita whatever meaning serves their purpose.

However, the crucial issue in the Gita, according to my understanding, is its anxiety to preserve the basic structure of society based on Varnashramadharma (varna = caste; ashrama = stage; dharma = duty). For me, Sri Krishna is not merely encouraging Arjuna to fight for a just war to reclaim their rightful kingdom. Though Krishna’s immediate concern may be this, he looks beyond it to uphold Varnashramadharma (See my paper on Gita in the Book Review section).

Traditional (orthodox) commentators and modern (liberal) scholars do not limit themselves to discussing the Varnashramadharma ideal in the Gita but instead use (or abuse) it to serve their own purposes. That is why we often hear about the rhetorical claims of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, and Jnana Yoga. With that said, I would like to take just two examples to highlight how text-torturing allows anyone to impose their views on scripture.

First Example: Gita

For staunch Vaishnavas, the Gita is their scripture. To some extent, they are correct if one considers the historical, textual, and theological background, though not everyone agrees with them. On their part, they often quote Gita 7:21, where Sri Krishna says:

Yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhakta: Sraddhaayrcitumicchati 

Tasya tasyaa calaam Sriddhaam taameva vidadhaamyaham 

Whichever deity form a bhakta seeks to worship with faith, I make the faith of that bhakta in that form firm.

To endorse this, they also cite the famous sloka:

Aakaasaat patitam toyam yathaa gacchati saagaram, 

Sarva-deva-namaskaarah Kesavam pratigacchati. 

Just as water falls from the sky and reaches the sea, so does worship offered to various deities reach Kesava alone.

This viewpoint is common in many other Hindu sampradayas. For example, Sivajnani Siddhiyar says, ‘whichever deity you follow, Siva comes to you in that form’ (Yaadoru daivam kondeer at daivamaahi aange maadorubaahanaar taamvaruvaar)². This kind of pluralistic inclusivism is prevalent in Hinduism and opens the door for any interpretation through text-torturing. While liberals read universalism, orthodox (fundamentalist?) bhaktas insist on exclusivism. With such a situation, it is not surprising to find both exclusivism and universalism in Hindu scripture, leading to the demand that the Gita be declared India’s scripture—especially by politicians and 65 percent of CNN-IBN viewers saying “YES” to this in the program. As a digression, I wonder how they calculate this percentage, representing all viewers of the program (or any other program). Is this 65 percent out of 100, 1,000 viewers, or just those who responded via SMS, Twitter, or email? I would be happier if CNN-IBN provided the exact number of respondents instead of a percentage. This poll result could easily be manipulated, as no one would question them about it.

Another point worth mentioning is that Sri Subramaniam Swamy commented that he couldn’t recall any politician quoting from the Gita. But when the late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Sri N.T. Rama Rao lost his election, he quoted the famous Gita sloka from 2:47: Karmanyevaadhikaaraste… (‘You have the right to do your duty but never claim the fruits’). Politicians know better than anyone how to explain away their mistakes, failures, and defeats.

Second Example: Bible (Muktiveda)

Though the scope of pluralism is very limited in the Bible, all exclusivism claimed by many Christians based on their interpretations of certain texts will help us understand the art of ‘text torture’ in other scriptures as well. For example, to insist on Jesus (whom I call Muktinath) as the only Lord and Savior, two key verses from the New Testament (Uttara Veda) are often cited: John 14:6 and Acts 4:12³. Below is my response to a Christian who questioned the exclusiveness of the Lord Jesus Christ, which also highlights the art of ‘text torture’ in other faiths:

At the same time, we should not confuse all exclusive claims of Muktinath as the only ‘Way, Truth, and Life,’ etc., in Muktiveda in any context of comparative theology. For instance, Acts 4:12 is often used as proof that salvation is available only through Muktinath. However, the question that comes to my mind is: “Is this verse addressed to Gentiles in particular, both Gentiles and believers, only believers, or—as per the context—those opposing the preaching about the Lord?” I strongly believe in scriptural exegesis, and this verse, if interpreted correctly according to the context, should not be used for exclusive claims. About this, A.T. Robinson says, ‘The word for “saved” here (and hence “salvation”) is the same as that rendered three verses earlier in Acts 4:9 by “cured.” The context is not one of comparative religion but of faith-healing. The issue is “by which power” the cripple is made “completely well” (3:16). Is it by some innate power or godliness of the apostles (3:12), or is it by “the name of Jesus, awakening faith”?’⁴ The same applies to John 10:8, which, again according to Robinson, ‘has nothing to do with comparative religion.’5 Robinson’s explanation of John 14:6 further clarifies this point:

Much the same must be said of another Johannine text, often used for exclusivist purposes: ‘Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father except through me”’ (14:6). The context here is Thomas’s question about how the disciples can know where Jesus is going and, therefore, how they can know the way. The answer is that he is going to the Father, and since they know him, they need not ask further. With Philip saying, ‘Show us the Father,’ the point made is that to have seen Jesus is to have seen the Father (14:1-11). The evangelist asserts that Jesus, as the Christ, is totus Deus (all of God): the Father is perfectly reflected in him. There is no suggestion in the context that he is claiming to be totum Dei (the whole of God), implying that outside him, there is no truth or life

Such a claim would, in any case, run counter to the logic of the Fourth Gospel itself, which speaks of the Word logos in creation, in the world, and in the light of all men.⁶

Concluding Remarks

First, let me thank CNN-IBN for organizing this discussion and their concern about the Gita’s status. They deserve commendation for discussing such a crucial topic and for their interest in preserving the rich spiritual heritage of India. Second, I wonder why we should treat the Gita as the only scripture of Hinduism when every Hindu sampradaya has its own favorite scripture, though it acknowledges the existence of others. For example, Advaitis claim Brahma Sutra as their scripture; for Vaishnavas, Srimad Bhagavatam; for Saivites, Siva Rahasya; for Smarthas, Vishnu Purana; and for Arya Samaj, Satya Prakash (in the absence of the Vedas).

Instead of fighting for one scripture, can we recognize the beauty of our pluralism and sampradayas in Hinduism, which allows each one to choose and follow their scripture of choice? This is why no one scripture or religious leader has been imposed on all Hindus, and that should be respected. Let’s embrace the diversity and richness of our tradition instead of trying to make the Gita or any scripture exclusive to all Hindus.

DB. December, 21, 2011.

1 See my paper on Gita for more on this term.

2 யாதொரு தெய்வம் கொண்டீர் அத்தெய்வமாகி ஆங்கே

மாதொரு பாகனார்தாம் வருவர் !!!! மற்றத் தெய்வங்கள்

வேதனைப்படும் பிறக்கும் இறக்கம் மேல் வினையும் செய்யும்

ஆதாலல் அவை இலாதான் அறிந்து அருள் செய்வன் அன்றே

இதன் பொருள் : கடவுள் யார்? அவர் இலக்கணம் என்ன? என்று தெரியாத நிலையில் பெரும்பாலோர் எதையோ ஒரு தெய்வம் என்று நம்பி, அல்லது எதுவும் தெய்வம் தான் என்று நம்பி வழிபாடு செய்து வருகிறார்கள்.

ஆனால்‌, பெரும்பாலோர் வழிபடும் ஏதோ ஓரு தெய்வத்தின் வடிவாக வந்து அருள் செய்பவர் மாதொரு பாகராகிய சிவபெரு‍மான்தான்!– சிவஞான சித்தியார் -அருள் நந்தி சிவம்.  Alslo see: Tiruvartpa,(by Ramalinga Adihalar) Text and commentary (Tamil), Owai S. Duraisamippillai, Suddha Sanmarga Nilayam, Vadalur, vol. 4. P. 330

3John, 14:6: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”; Acts 4:12:” Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”.

4. John A.T. Robinson, TRUTH IS TWO EYED , SCM Press Ltd., p. 105

5 ibid. p.106.

6 ibid. p. 107